English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
about OcamIL
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2010-05-17 (07:53)
From: forum@x...
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com> a écrit :

> Xavier Clerc:
>> Le 14 mai 2010 à 12:40, Jon Harrop a écrit :
>> > Xavier Clerc wrote:
>> >> Limiting myself to the JVM...
>> >> Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
>> >
>> > I have benchmarks where the JVM is well over 10x slower than .NET. So
>> > I do not regard any JVM-based language as "high performance".
>> Quite ironically, by scratching the surface, one would discover that
>> both quoted projects can also target .NET (not tested that though).
> Does Bigloo.NET support value types? Does Scala.NET use .NET (2.0) generics?
> Not AFAICT. Name dropping them in the context of "high performance" language
> implementations is more than a little bit silly...

First off, public insult seems quite superfluous.
We should be able to handle a heated debate without resorting to that.

And I still wait for a clear statement of your level for "high performance",
and references to benchmarks that back up your claims in this thread.
As you seem to come from an academic background, I expect facts
and references, and not ad hominem attacks and fuzzy unbacked claims.
Unless you show that neither Bigloo nor Scala meet your (to be defined)
criteria for "high performance", my counterexamples still stand.

It may just end up that we have different perceptions of "high performance",
and of the trade-offs we are going to make in our language / platform choices.


Xavier Clerc